The upcoming game in Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed franchise is already gaining some notoriety for its depiction of a Minuteman-siding protagonist fighting both British soldiers and Templar agents. Head writer Corey May has already stated that Assassin's Creed III's story is historical, not anti-British but that doesn't change the fact that the original box art showed us a British soldier two seconds away from taking a tomahawk to the face. This may not be a controversial issue for American audiences, but there is a slight concern considering that Ubisoft is Europe's third-largest game publisher, and serves a significant number of British citizens. Perhaps it's not too surprising then that the recently announced Assassin's Creed III Limited Edition will be a North and Latin America exclusive, while European gamers will be left with standard and digital editions only.

While Ubisoft hasn't stated why European gamers are being left out, it's hard to deny that the Limited Edition includes many patriotic-themed items that will carry different meanings to different audiences. The set includes a massive 24" by 48" Assassin's Creed-inspired colonial American flag and a 9.44" statue of protagonist Connor standing before a (somewhat smaller) colonial flag. Also included for Digital Deluxe Edition users is a notebook containing "George Washington's true story". This Deluxe Edition should still be available for all players, and will also include a soundtrack, extra single-player missions, and extra in-game outfits.

No one is expecting Ubisoft to release a European Limited Edition with a Templar-themed British flag alongside the true story of King George III, but there might be a conflicting message when Ubisoft (a French publisher by the way) isn't giving European gamers the option for a Limited Edition of their own.

Although I'm not British, the entire premise of the game makes me quite uncomfortable, and a reflection on this whole controversy has resulted in me sympathising with Russian gamers who's own homeland is constantly portrayed as the bad guy in modern shooters.

I'm sure AssCreed 3 will sell well in Europe regardless, but patriotism is a shallow premise for a game, especially when combined with rampant ahistoricism i.e. completely glossing over the atrocities the Native Americans suffered.

But hey, British people, if any Americans piss you off over this just remind them that they got their asses handed to them in the War of 1812.

I used to think political correctness was bullshit made up by racists, misogynists, and other assorted assholes until I saw the shitstorm surrounding ACIII. SERIOUSLY people its a historical setting and some one had to be the bad guys. 'Then they shouldn't have used this period' Hmm.. by that reasoning all ideological conflicts are off limits to games.. hell even a villain out for sheer profit thinks hes doing the right thing because said profit will increase his chances of surviving (a biological imperative).

Why do they keep saying this while having modern British accents for British troops?

The British colonists and the British soldiers would sound the same, and would not have sounded like modern British English. For one thing, the dropping of the hard "H" sound is a comparatively recent thing in Britain.

I would be fine with having both the colonists and the redcoats having modern British accents, because it at least would be consistently incorrect. But to give it to only the redcoats reeks of, well, not being historical and perhaps even anti-British.

Sevre:Although I'm not British, the entire premise of the game makes me quite uncomfortable, and a reflection on this whole controversy has resulted in me sympathising with Russian gamers who's own homeland is constantly portrayed as the bad guy in modern shooters.

What? No sympathy for all us socially aware Americans who have to put up with being the villain in real life every other time we turn on the news?

Sevre:Although I'm not British, the entire premise of the game makes me quite uncomfortable, and a reflection on this whole controversy has resulted in me sympathising with Russian gamers who's own homeland is constantly portrayed as the bad guy in modern shooters.

I'm sure AssCreed 3 will sell well in Europe regardless, but patriotism is a shallow premise for a game, especially when combined with rampant ahistoricism i.e. completely glossing over the atrocities the Native Americans suffered.

But hey, British people, if any Americans piss you off over this just remind them that they got their asses handed to them in the War of 1812.

Maybe I'm just an insensitive jerk American pig, but this whole concept of "cultural discomfort" confuses me. I don't mean to belittle the feelings of discomfort; I completely empathize that they are legit... I just genuinely don't understand them. Again... insensitive American here. XD

I watched Letters from Iwo Jima last week. Watching Americans get shot and treated like the bad guy didn't bother me at all. I can watch movies where Americans are the big bad outsiders and get shot in the face, and I'm fine with it. I'm curious why watching British redcoats get shot would - at face value - be cringe inducing.

Hell, if you gave me a Call of Duty game where the whole point is to shoot overweight Americans hanging out at McDonald's, I'd probably play it and laugh. Hehehe, I'm giggling just thinking about it. XD

*ahem*

I completely respect that this kind of thing could make British people uncomfortable, but this happened long long before our lifetime. I can easily see someone making a game about 9/11 three hundred years from now, and many people would probably play as the terrorists and shrug it off.

Heck, case in point. This is for any of mah British Peeps who are offended. One of the funniest things ever:

This happened 235 years ago. What's next, Romans being offended at the release of a gladiator movie? Iranians being offended at 300? (Well, that actually happened.) Jews being offended at a Jesus crucifixion movie? (Also happened.) I'm not helping my argument. I don't understand people who are offended at anything ever, but maybe that's just my low opinion of myself talking.

I'm not following... The Freedom Edition has the figurine, George Washington's notebook and Ghost of War (single player mission). And that's not all. So what we're not getting is a flag? I can live with that :)

What upsets me about the whole thing is saying Conor is from the Mohawk tribe but is allied with the Americans. The Mohawks and most of the Native Americans in that area (mainly the tribes known as the Six Nations today, but there were others) sided with the British in the American Revolution. Just saying. However I will reserve judgement of the final product until I play it because they have made mention of templars on both sides and that Conor isn't allied with either but we need to wait until we have our hands on the game to really know if that is true.

I don't think there are many British people that are offended by this. After all, we are aware that our ancestors were massive dicks.We are, however, disappointed that a series which is usually quite historically accurate is dropping most of its historical accuracy in order to appeal to the "'MURRICAH! FUCK YEAH!" demographic. Or perhaps it's to stop Fox News from jumping on Assassin's Creed III as a "Forefather murder simulator!". Possibly both.

CrazyBlaze:What upsets me about the whole thing is saying Conor is from the Mohawk tribe but is allied with the Americans. The Mohawks and most of the Native Americans in that area (mainly the tribes known as the Six Nations today, but there were others) sided with the British in the American Revolution. Just saying. However I will reserve judgement of the final product until I play it because they have made mention of templars on both sides and that Conor isn't allied with either but we need to wait until we have our hands on the game to really know if that is true.

Yeah, that bugged me too. Moreso because one of the grievances the Colonists held against the Crown was that they wanted to expand further west, into what was then 'Indian territory' while the British Govt didn't want to break treaties with their Indian allies.

I don't think there are many British people that are offended by this. After all, we are aware that our ancestors were massive dicks.We are, however, disappointed that a series which is usually quite historically accurate is dropping most of its historical accuracy in order to appeal to the "'MURRICAH! FUCK YEAH!" demographic. Or perhaps it's to stop Fox News from jumping on Assassin's Creed III as a "Forefather murder simulator!". Possibly both.

Not giving vaguely democratic rights to a small proportion of the colonies is not being a 'massive dick'.

Wait, what? Here in the Netherlands I'd have no problem pre-ordering the Freedom Edition (inludes the figurine, notebook and DLC), or the Join or Die Edition (with the notebook and some DLC). So I can't get the flag? Big deal.

Also, who'd be offended by this anyway? Every country has some black pages in its history books (not even saying this was one of them), deal with it.

CrazyBlaze:What upsets me about the whole thing is saying Conor is from the Mohawk tribe but is allied with the Americans. The Mohawks and most of the Native Americans in that area (mainly the tribes known as the Six Nations today, but there were others) sided with the British in the American Revolution. Just saying. However I will reserve judgement of the final product until I play it because they have made mention of templars on both sides and that Conor isn't allied with either but we need to wait until we have our hands on the game to really know if that is true.

Yeah, that bugged me too. Moreso because one of the grievances the Colonists held against the Crown was that they wanted to expand further west, into what was then 'Indian territory' while the British Govt didn't want to break treaties with their Indian allies.

More on topic:

Could have given UK a sweet Loyalist flag for their special edition:

Everyone's a winner.

Except the French.

Well everyone's saying that the french helped the rebellion in the colonies, so in a sense they did win. Also, I don't know what everyone's getting in a tuss about. Every American and British man knows that the Indians sided with the brits. So why doesn't everyone come out to the obvious conclusion? ubisoft is going to EXPLAIN everything in the actual storyline. So buckle down, and wait.

I can't imagine it selling well over here anyway (obvious reasons). Honestly my opinion is I don't care about killing Brits(as I recall there were Brits in Acre in AC1 whom I had no bother killing) but it's the fact that they seem to be marketing the whole affair as a pro-american 4th July display of patriotism to sell it in the U.S, as opposed to the unbiased take of earlier games.

John Funk:Well, the French WERE on our side in this one. Historically ;)

Don't forget the Spanish, Dutch, Moroccan, and the League of Armed Neutrality . They helped out to with trade or attacking British colonies and shipping lanes. So it was not just the french that helped out :)

CrazyBlaze:What upsets me about the whole thing is saying Conor is from the Mohawk tribe but is allied with the Americans. The Mohawks and most of the Native Americans in that area (mainly the tribes known as the Six Nations today, but there were others) sided with the British in the American Revolution. Just saying. However I will reserve judgement of the final product until I play it because they have made mention of templars on both sides and that Conor isn't allied with either but we need to wait until we have our hands on the game to really know if that is true.

Yeah, that bugged me too. Moreso because one of the grievances the Colonists held against the Crown was that they wanted to expand further west, into what was then 'Indian territory' while the British Govt didn't want to break treaties with their Indian allies.

More on topic:

Could have given UK a sweet Loyalist flag for their special edition:

Everyone's a winner.

Except the French.

Well everyone's saying that the french helped the rebellion in the colonies, so in a sense they did win. Also, I don't know what everyone's getting in a tuss about. Every American and British man knows that the Indians sided with the brits. So why doesn't everyone come out to the obvious conclusion? ubisoft is going to EXPLAIN everything in the actual storyline. So buckle down, and wait.

Except they bankrupted themselves doing it, which directly lead to the French Revolution. Silly frogs.

Rhys95:I can't imagine it selling well over here anyway (obvious reasons). Honestly my opinion is I don't care about killing Brits(as I recall there were Brits in Acre in AC1 whom I had no bother killing) but it's the fact that they seem to be marketing the whole affair as a pro-american 4th July display of patriotism to sell it in the U.S, as opposed to the unbiased take of earlier games.

I'll believe the "not anti-British" statement when one of your many trailers actually features an American soldier getting killed. I thought the Assasins were supposed to be fighting the Templar war, not a revolutionary war. You can set your game in one of course, but at least make it so that it's not blatantly obvious that you're fighting for one side.

As long as it is as they say historically accurate and they don't portray the Brits as bumbling fools (unless that is accurate for that section) or just change history to as mentioned previously "MERICA FUCK YEAH!"

Also as mentioned previously I wouldn't mind the idea of a loyalist flag for the British special edition but we Brits complain about everything anyway so if your going to deny the uber edition you might as well deny it to the British.

Ill just sit down with my Guinness in one hand my tea in the other wearing my tophat and watching Doctor who "WHAT WHAT"

Yeah, that bugged me too. Moreso because one of the grievances the Colonists held against the Crown was that they wanted to expand further west, into what was then 'Indian territory' while the British Govt didn't want to break treaties with their Indian allies.

More on topic:

Could have given UK a sweet Loyalist flag for their special edition:

Everyone's a winner.

Except the French.

Well everyone's saying that the french helped the rebellion in the colonies, so in a sense they did win. Also, I don't know what everyone's getting in a tuss about. Every American and British man knows that the Indians sided with the brits. So why doesn't everyone come out to the obvious conclusion? ubisoft is going to EXPLAIN everything in the actual storyline. So buckle down, and wait.

Except they bankrupted themselves doing it, which directly lead to the French Revolution. Silly frogs.

Rhys95:I can't imagine it selling well over here anyway (obvious reasons). Honestly my opinion is I don't care about killing Brits(as I recall there were Brits in Acre in AC1 whom I had no bother killing) but it's the fact that they seem to be marketing the whole affair as a pro-american 4th July display of patriotism to sell it in the U.S, as opposed to the unbiased take of earlier games.

I don't think there are many British people that are offended by this. After all, we are aware that our ancestors were massive dicks.We are, however, disappointed that a series which is usually quite historically accurate is dropping most of its historical accuracy in order to appeal to the "'MURRICAH! FUCK YEAH!" demographic. Or perhaps it's to stop Fox News from jumping on Assassin's Creed III as a "Forefather murder simulator!". Possibly both.

Pretty much my view on it. I honestly don't care who we are killing, I'm more than happy to kill my fellow Brits in a game (and beyond the regular cesspools of the internet like the Youtube comments section, I don't think I've seen anyone else complaining that we will be killing Brits).

What concerns me is the way it seems like they are portraying a Hollywood version of events. I still have the Join or Die Edition pre-ordered and I'm really looking forward to the game, I'm just going to be disappointed if they do in fact portray events in the aforementioned style because they think they need to do it for it to sell in America (I honestly think most American fans would prefer a historically accurate version and they are aware it wasn't a simple case of America=good, Britain=bad.)

I know they've said it's not going to be like that and I'm willing to trust them (I'm probably going to enjoy the game either way), but it really doesn't help when the box art is the way it is, every trailer and gameplay video shows a pretty clear bias in favour of America (sneak into a Britsih camp and what's the first thing you see? British soldiers flogging someone while their Templar leader watches and sips tea). Then to top it all of, there was a presentation where they addressed the issue (I think it was probably E3) by saying we won't just be killing the British and Connor is going to fight on both sides...which was then immediately followed by a gameplay clip of Connor killing the British. The funny thing is, all it would take for me to put all my doubts aside is a single trailer or gameplay clip showing Connor working alongside the British or at least fighting some Americans.

I don't have an issue with AC3 having the protagonist kill British people.

I have an issue with AC3 being marketed (and possibly actually playing) as Mel Gibson's The Patriot in game form.

The colonial rebellions weren't a cut and dry "Colonies=Good, Britain=Bad" situation and there was a whole lot of good and bad on both sides of the issue. Instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator, why not take that as an opportunity to perhaps educate your audience about history and hopefully spark them into action to look into it more themselves? Challenge their (pre-)established perceptions.

Fuck, just look at Assassin's Creed 1. Neither side was innocent of Templar corruption. Altair butchered Crusader and Saladin's men alike.

Amnestic:I don't have an issue with AC3 having the protagonist kill British people.

I have an issue with AC3 being marketed (and possibly actually playing) as Mel Gibson's The Patriot in game form.

The colonial rebellions weren't a cut and dry "Colonies=Good, Britain=Bad" situation and there was a whole lot of good and bad on both sides of the issue. Instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator, why not take that as an opportunity to perhaps educate your audience about history and hopefully spark them into action to look into it more themselves? Challenge their (pre-)established perceptions.

Fuck, just look at Assassin's Creed 1. Neither side was innocent of Templar corruption. Altair butchered Crusader and Saladin's men alike.

I dont see the issue here. Previeus games had higher editions that werent available to americans why are people pissed off now. And its not like this a an american game. Ubisoft is french. Russions are portrayed badly all the time and no one seems to care. No one cared when resident evil 4 came out that you were killing a large number of one ethnicity. While yes the cover does show a british soldier about to take some assassin steel to the face. Thats the cover. If there is any depth to the plot, such as you killing on both sides for many different reasons you dont want to give that away.